After 19-Year Delay In Pursuing 2006 Application, P&H HC Rejects Widow And Son’s Compassionate Job Plea

The deceased employee, a regular Beldar, died in harness on 31 March 2006.

His widow (petitioner No. 2) applied for ex-gratia employment on 11 July 2006; the petitioners later sought consideration for compassionate appointment under the 2003 Rules.

They alleged that neither compassionate appointment nor financial assistance had been granted, and relied on a departmental recommendation dated 27 June 2023.

The State contended that the family had received the benefits due under the applicable policy, had opted for ex-gratia financial assistance, and that the widow received family pension; it also relied on the petitioners’ failure to pursue the application and the delay in filing the writ petition.

The petition was filed in 2025, nearly 19 years after the employee’s death.

Rule 4 of the Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2003, required a dependent to state a preference between compassionate appointment and financial assistance within three years of the employee’s death.

The Haryana Compassionate Assistance and Employment to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2005, were in force when the employee died; those Rules provided a six-month period for exercising the option and increased the financial assistance to ₹5 lakh.

The 2006 Rules repealed the 2005 Rules but preserved an option for families to receive the lump-sum ex-gratia grant under the 2003 or 2005 Rules, as applicable.

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Debabrata Tiwari, the Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to ordinary recruitment, is not a vested right, and must address the family’s immediate financial crisis; it also relied on Sudhir Bala v. State of Punjab and Pinki Devi v. State of Haryana on delay and the need to satisfy the applicable policy’s eligibility criteria.

The Court found that the employee’s death occurred when the 2005 Rules were in force, and that the widow’s 11 July 2006 application was made under that policy; it therefore rejected the request to obtain appointment under the repealed 2003 Rules.

It also accepted the State’s unrebutted assertion that the family had opted for ex-gratia financial assistance and that the widow received family pension; no replication had been filed to contest that assertion.

Further, the petitioners did not pursue the matter for years after the application, sent a legal notice only in 2017, and filed the writ petition in 2025.

Applying the principles on delay and laches and the limited, crisis-relief purpose of compassionate appointment, the Court held that the claim was not sustainable.

The writ petition was dismissed; any pending applications were also disposed of.